Posted: Fri Apr 23, 2021 2:19 pm
Gallia- wrote:There are no technical issues except that FOBS isn't very useful.
How is that?
Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/
Gallia- wrote:There are no technical issues except that FOBS isn't very useful.
Cossack Peoples wrote:I'm considering either a decoy-heavy traditional ICBM
Cossack Peoples wrote:What I'm asking is whether the shitty aim of dropping nukes while in LEO could be fixed with modern-day technology
Cossack Peoples wrote:I will more likely augment conventional ICBMs with the unconventional approach.
Dtn wrote:Actually, technically it wouldn't, because this isn't how semantics works.
Dtn wrote:Anyway your question is essentially unanswerable. Everything would have to be replaced either way with associated changes to the internal layout. I doubt there were any radical advances in electric technology during the 20s, so in addition to superheated boilers and the new turbines to take advantage of them, a turbo-electric upgrade would need more or bigger generators, bigger motors, a completely new electrical system, and probably new propeller shafts and engines (by which of course I mean propellers since words have no meaning).
Dtn wrote:As to why you'd lengthen the ship I'd forgotten we're dealing with the vaunted naval architects of United Earthlings here.
Dtn wrote:Kind of weird they were still chugging along at around the same speed after all this with a few notable exceptions. (Obviously something like the Caio Duilio refit isn't possible for a US standard type.)
Arkandros wrote:An upgraded turbo electric would be better. Shifting to a direct drive geared turbine would require significant rework of the engineering spaces, not only for the physical placement of the equipment (if memory serves, the standards couldn’t even have fit a direct drive arrangement without rearranging the propulsion turbines) but also in the hull’s structural elements and support systems to enable the use of large reduction gear assemblies.
Gallia- wrote:FOBS was more than accurate for its intended targets and the inherent weaknesses of FOBS can't be fixed with anything resembling modern technology.
But FOBS in the literal sense is wholly obsolete a technology.
United Earthlings wrote:Dtn wrote:Actually, technically it wouldn't, because this isn't how semantics works.
In actual fact, that's exactly how semantics works. If languages can evolve and words can take on new meanings, I'm sure if I convinced enough people to go die on this hill by beating this dead horse, well that's the beauty of language it's open to interpretation.
Why can't we reengine without reengining?
United Earthlings wrote:I believe this is one area that falls under the grammar rules known as semantics.
United Earthlings wrote:
- On the advances in electric technology. OK, but did you know do your research to check if that statement is true or false, or did you just decide to pull an Ace Ventura?
- Answering an essentially unanswerable question. Schrödinger's cat must love you.
- Sincerely, thanks for taking the time to answer my question.
United Earthlings wrote:Noted, for what I have in mind, I would prefer to keep a turbo-electric drive system anyway since my nation built quite a few more turbo-electric drive vessels then the US built historically. Which means, I figured that turbo-electric drives are a little more advanced then they were historically since my nation was pushing the technological limits with them as much as possible.
United Earthlings wrote:That's why I was highlighting the notable exceptions since this is the closest approximation to what I was thinking about doing to the late facsimile standard battleships my NS nation built.
Comparing it to what the Italians did with the Andrea Doria class with a massive rebuilt, since the final length and beam of the rebuilt Andrea Doria is still shorter than what the as built American Colorado class is, I'm not sure a lengthening would be required for what I have in mind,
United Earthlings wrote:For the propulsion system, besides superheated boilers, there would be new turbines and new generators. Then the question is, given efficacy advancements during the 1920s into the mid 1930s, would a larger generator be necessary? Is a same size, more efficient generator able to handle the increase power output, which I estimate would be somewhere between 75 and 85,000 shp to achieve the required 25 knots. More powerful electric motors which then leads into the question do you do two very powerful bigger electric motors as that found on the Lexington-class battlecruisers/aircraft carrier or four smaller, but similar in size to what would have been on the unbuilt South Dakota, only a more advanced version by the time the mid 1930s roll around. New AC alternators able to handle the stronger current output.
United Earthlings wrote:Replacing key components of the electrical system, a complete replacement doesn't seem required to me
United Earthlings wrote:And yes, before you comment I'm aware that such a reconstruction project would be almost if not similar to the construction costs of a newly built battleship. That's not an issue.
United Earthlings wrote:Which means, I figured that turbo-electric drives are a little more advanced then they were historically since my nation was pushing the technological limits with them as much as possible.
United Earthlings wrote:And yes, before you comment I'm aware that such a reconstruction project would be almost if not similar to the construction costs of a newly built battleship. That's not an issue.
Cossack Peoples wrote:I know your reservations against a FOBS system
Dtn wrote:why doesnt the us have radars to detect a handful of missiles from 50 years ago lol
Shanghai industrial complex wrote:It seems that the United States does not have enough early warning radars to detect if it flies from Antarctica to the United States.
Triplebaconation wrote:Of course this is United Earthlings, which seems to constantly be in an arms race designed to produce large forces carefully tailored for foreign intervention just in caseinit has to fight a war for the first time in three centuries.
In reality even if the work was done for free it would be a terrible decision. In the mid-30s a 25-knot battleship is only marginally more effective than a 21-knotter, a reconstruction is likely compromised in some way to reach that speed, and if money is no issue they still consume a large amount of limited resources like battleship length slipways, design skill, and industrial capacity in general in proportion to the degree of reconstruction.
If cost isn't an issue why are you worrying about cost-effectiveness lol
Well who knows. But this is where semantics actually comes in - by casting this as a "re-engining" you're persuading yourself this is a relatively simple and feasible procedure.
In reality the US couldn't come up with an adequate newly-designed 25-knot battleship at the tonnage of the Standards until the North Carolina, and this wasn't the result of steady linear improvement but a large leap from superheated 300 psi boilers to superheated 600 psi boilers and the abandonment of turbo-electric drive. This technology was still untested in the mid-1930s so it's doubtful anyone is going to reconstruct a fleet of old battleships around it.
Of course United Earthlings is a "little more advanced" so why are you asking if it's feasible or not? If it's not you'll just get more and more a little more advanced so this is all a pointless endeavor really.
New more efficient generators and new AC alternators able to handle the stronger current output?
The main generators were alternators turned by turbines. They don't handle current output, they create it. (Of course alternators need a small DC generator but this isn't a big concern - the New Mexico's 11 MW alternators had 300 kW exciters.)
The basic electrical components of power generation haven't changed much in 150 years. There have been some small refinements, but certainly nothing allowing for a "same size, more efficient generator" of substantially increased output between the 20s and 30s. Nearly all the major advances in electrical generation have been on the mechanical side.
Have you looked at pictures of these Italian battleships before and after their reconstruction? You might notice a major difference.
As a side note, do you suppose actual pushing of technological limits in both turbo-electric and pure turbine technology occurred because of a few battleships or continued pressure to produce more and cheaper electricity for the civilian market?
If United Earthlings (about which we know nothing about) is pushing the technological limits of turbo-electrics while the US was fiddling its thumbs (lol) how are we supposed to answer some question when you're just making things up? Cost-effectiveness doesn't depend solely on technical issues.
Maybe "unknowable" isn't the right word. You either know them or make them up as you go along so there doesn't seem to be much point in asking us.
We'll get to the research later, but I didn't answer an unanswerable question. The answer depends on unknowable factors, complicated by:
All those years studying Derrida and Baudrillard wasted when I could have just got United Earthlings to explain my first degree to me.
United Earthlings wrote:Triplebaconation wrote:Of course this is United Earthlings, which seems to constantly be in an arms race designed to produce large forces carefully tailored for foreign intervention just in caseinit has to fight a war for the first time in three centuries.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
All fair points, that stated I believe you would agree that every nation has their own defense priorities and what they regard as value for that defense spending. If I have my make believe nation deem a potential reconstruction of some of its Dreadnoughts to be of worthwhile value and roleplay as accurately as possible the various trade-offs and compromises that were made to undertake such an endeavor, then a terrible decision wouldn't become apparent until later, hindsight only being possible after looking back on past events.
A. The United States doesn't exist in my nation's reality. All NS nations are made up nations, therefore everything from start to finish about them is just things everyone made up.
B. I'm aware that cost-effectiveness isn't determine entirely by technical issues.
C. Since all of NS history is just people making things up, a better question would be if made up/created things including this thread are such a major deal breaker for you, why are you even bothering to post on a fictional nation message board of all things?
Simple, no. Feasible hasn't yet been established hence my asking the question here.
The basic ideas might not have changed (which makes sense), but the technology of the mechanical side sure has, which is what I've been asking. You've implied there were no advances on the mechanical side of the equation all throughout the 1920s and early 1930s. That seems implausible to me. I have yet to see where humans haven't set out to make a machine more efficient in its operation.
A simple question: Are the efficiency gains on the mechanical side of a TE drive enough to permit a gain of additional power output thereby increasing speed?
Have you looked at pictures of these Italian battleships before and after their reconstruction? You might notice a major difference.
I've noticed a few differences. Is there anything specific you would like to point out?
As a side note, do you suppose actual pushing of technological limits in both turbo-electric and pure turbine technology occurred because of a few battleships or continued pressure to produce more and cheaper electricity for the civilian market?
Can it not be both?
All those years studying Derrida and Baudrillard wasted when I could have just got United Earthlings to explain my first degree to me.
And in closing: Your Fallacies of witticism continue to bring me much joy.
Miku the Based wrote:How much Mongolian do you need to learn to start a khanate named after yourself in the year of 2021?
The Manticoran Empire wrote:How might a modern motorized brigade/division equipped with wheeled armored fighting vehicles (i.e. LAV-III/Stryker/BTR) be employed alongside tracked mechanized brigades/divisions and leg infantry brigades/divisions?